Warzouz

I must say I always use the small one. Burt again, I don't do much regular stages rockets (I prefer recoverable SSTO rockets). I only detach lateral payloads such as satellites. In beta 0.9, I used a lot the medium ones, but never the big ones.

Hmmm, when I played my first career game, I had to deal with low income in early game. The solution wasn't using the administrative building (strategies) to get more funds, but to spend less. I dumped my regular launchers and went to recoverable SSTO rockets. I could heavy launch space stations for a bargain, which wouldn't have been possible otherwise (As SSTO space place aren't easily scalable, they don't wreck gameplay) Adding more barriers to the game only leads to overcome them by using sideways strategies which may not be realistic. SSTO rockets are mostly interesting because LKO cost has bee reduced from 4500 to 3200m/s since beta. IF the gameplay would be changed, I think it shouldn't allow to get all the tech tree to be unlocked before going to at least Duna. But again reducing science income is turning the game to be more grindy. And as you don't get parts that allow you to do it efficiently (docking rings and ISRU to allow multiple landings without redoing the same mission from the start) it's more frustrating than gameplay improvement. Mauybe the game only lacks some "difficulty presets" so we can choose on how we want to play the game. That would be very simple to add to the game.

I did some testings before 1.0.5 was released (in 1.0.4, then)., using HyperEdit I tested a aero capture of a space station. I didn't tested from hyperbolic orbit, but from a very elliptic one. I have some pictures on the forum but I can't find where. From my initial design (a copy of my Duna space station) I only added 8 airbrakes on the grider where the gigantor solar pannels were attached. I tested with an added heatshield and without. Without heat shield : I blow the lower senior docking port, but not much else. Maybe the large (biggest 3.75m) fuel tank at the bottom managed the heat. With heat shield : Strangely, I lost 2 out of 4 solar panel I was quite surprise of the result with a nearly unprepared space station. Then I did some more tests with a 180 lander that hat to reach orbit again. The design didn't offer much room for heatshields, so I nearly added non. As usual Eve lander, the general design was adding griders outside the lander and add airbrakes, chutes and landing struts on them. All that stuff would be decoupled at takeoff. So basically, this ship had no heatshield (only small ones at the bottom of each griders (iirc). I managed to land the ship on Eve from a 100m/s deorbit. Using KER, I kept track of heat which usually reached 95 to 98%. I did a lot of tweaking on airbrakes to survive that. I even landed on Eve without chutes, drogue, airbrakes or heatshield : http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/117155-survived/ Now in 1.0.5. Heating seems to be much less forgiving and airbrakes are only useful on planes. All those ships would certainly blow up in very few seconds now.

Thx, I'll try that. I've noticed the ship was slowing down, but I never had the time to roll it correctly. Would it change to align the ship in orbit on a normal orientation first ? A for interplanetary, do you have how I could test Kerbin reentry vehicles quickly ?

Sorry for double post, but I was thinking : maybe the solution of career balancing is not by tweaking the existing features because we mostly all play in a different manner. Maybe the solution would be to "add" more roleplay. So we wouldn't do stuff because we "can't" but because it's not logical or doesn't fit with the background. Sure that would be totally optional. That would improve the gameplay, not restrict it. I think that a "mission" (regrouping of launches and ship under a "banner") would improve gameplay, especially if the game provides some sort of debriefing and mission review/history (could be a side effect of science collecting). Also a true self created contract system would help to set more personal objectives and get in-game rewards.

Yes that may be a solution. On my next career, I'll set the science income at 50%, and force the "buy parts" option. I'll see if I get lower tech interplanetary. On the other hand, I like space stations, and I'm not satisfied with the one I can build until docking port senior and large probe cores... I might also forbid me to grind science at KSC. I'll see how it turns out in 1.1.

True, but landing with a very flat angle and a suicid burn will moslty result in hitting terrain. You can't really control what terrain you'll get while landing, but you cans anticipate the terrain you'll encounter when you take-off (it's near and easy to locate from your location)

Having a high dV lander is NOT over engineered. It's very efficient when you start hopping from biome to biome. If your lander can only land and return, you'll burn more fuel than land-hop-hop-hop-return. It's much more science/fuel efficient. But, if your objective is only to land and plant flag, then, it's too much. PS : my "generic" lander has 3000m/s of dV, that gives it very large capacity to land, hop, recover kerbals even on retrograde orbit, rescue other landers without fuel. I remember it, very instructive. This video doesn't describe a fuel-efficient landing procedure, it describes a safe landing procedure. When you have a low TWR, the suicide burn may not be possible (you gain too much speed you don't have time to cancel later), so the "hover" landing is the only way you can land safely. Tested myself on Tylo with a 14T SSTO Lander with 0.98TWR at 30km orbit. I landed and back to orbit for 6000m/s. The low TWR and hover procedure cost quite a lot... I tried suicide burn and crashed every time, even with MJ.

Fun thing, I did exactly the same. I got a Tylo + Vall + Laythe flyby and ended on a AP near Bop orbit that managed to be also the AN or DN with Bop (very cheap plane change. All that for less than 20m/s (in 3 burns). Then I could go to Bop for 400m/s.

Is there a way to do some 5 way symmetry ? I have a hard time doing it manually in the VAB. Other question : when you do, let's say, a 6 way symmetry and you want to add stuff only on 4 of the 6 parts. Is there a way to do it with 2 way symmetry (which is hard to do clean stuff with) Any Stock solution ? Any moded solution ?

Hmmm, that's an issue, sure. The trouble is that you usually unlock all science before leaving Kerbin SOI. Unlocking science is mid-game, not end-game. When you start real interplanetary trips you usually don't have anything to unlock. Science should go slower, but, even though, there are some strange high techlevel parts. Such as probe cores, big docking rings, ISRU. I don't know how to handle that. I don't think spending science on parts or launches would do the trick. But game progression is a real issue in this game. Funds progression : funds are hard to get in the beginning/middle game, but very easy en end game. (that may be logical Science progression : probably too quick. There shouldn't be any science in KSC (except KSC itself) KSC progression : 3 tiers building are too little. The first step is quite easy, but the last step is too expensive and the gap too big. Basically, you have no restrictions... XP progression : too slow. When you start interplanetary travel, you merely have few 3 star kerbals. Scientist become mostly useless (except if you like collecting biome data as I do). Only engineers have a point to get to level 5. Reputation progression : very hard to get high, even it's not explained what it really do.

Yes button placement in this window should be fixed. I hops they did it in the interface overhaul.

Hi Thx for this useful testing mod. There is 2 things I fail to do properly with HyperEdit Landing : what is the proper procedure to land a ship with HyperEdit without messing with orientation ? In the end, I put the ship in orbit a do a manual landing, but I waste a lot of time. How to simulate interplanetary trajectory in Kerbin SOI ? I can extend a ellipse to the border of SOI, but I fail to create hyperbolic trajectory to test reentry vehicles at high speed Thx a lot for any help ?

Yes I would like to know the recovery curve too. In any case, it's very forgiving. Extrapolating it from trials would be quite a hassle. I always land withing 70km and very rarely get less than 96%. I favour landing in water, because I fear those mountains (basically since 1.0.4, there is no way to avoid crashing into them) and water is more forgiving in 1.0.5. But landing stuff that way is much easier than it seems. SSTO space planes are harder to land, as I also use them for very light charge and passengers. As I said, once you chose a reentry profile, you just have to figure where to deorbit. As for powered landing, it is sort of mandatory as the launcher is quite heavy (dry weight of the launcher is basically 80% of the payload). Landing it with chutes would require hundreds of them for my heaviest vehicle which weights 460tons (dry) for 600 tons payload to LKO. Power landing is quite easy, especially since water is more forgiving in 1.0.5. As you've noticed, I even don't use any landing gears. Less chutes, no gears, lower part count. I don't have played 1.0.5 much. The reentry is harder than before because of overheating. Cygnus family needs some tweaking (probably 2 more drogue chutes and removing the airbrakes).

The sad story is that areobraking/capture is very hard now, so, we mostly don't do it and pack more fuel. I remembered my mission to Jool in beta 0.9, I did a lot of aero capture, that was fun and spectacular. Now I just use rocket, just as any other moon/planet. (Ok, I use gravity assist, but even then, it's not spectacular). Using engines on Duna turn this planet to any other planet. Even it's more realistic, it reduces gameplay. That how I feel this issue. But even though, Squad seems to look into it as a bug.

There is a workaround : use "action groups", you can always extend antenna with actions group, even if the options disapeared from the menu once it has been used. I always add a "cosmetic action group" for such features. Antenna looks nicer when open.

I don't belive so. Reusable SSTO rockets are very easy to scale up because they have a very simple design. Basically, there is no staging until LKO. I play a lot with SSTO rockets (check my Cygnus family launchers), once you get one rocket to go to LKO, it's simply a matter of adding engines and fuel. I managed to go from 15T to 600tons with regular steps, only by adding or switiching engines and adding fuel tanks. For example I did the 600T variant in 10 minutes from the 300 tons rocket. First try : success. For landing, recover price is very dependent on where you land/spash. Sure I rarely land on KSC (98%) but I usually splash down near it (20 to 70km) and get 97% of dry cost. I remembered I messed up once and got only 90%. Renentry is mostly always the same : deorbit on the crater for 60m/s and wait (chutes are automatic). a small burn is needed to avoid breaking expensive stuff as engines... You need to practice few times to understand where to deorbit. That's the only constraint. My price per ton goes from 360 to 490 funds/ton including average recovery loss. Your ship disign is very nice though but your part number is very high (I'm figthing to keep is very low...) and this is already a problem when I lift some very heavy payloads. The part count reduces the framerate and ascent takes forever. Here are stats from my launchers

The problem of chuites on Duna has be identified by Sqquad as a bug. On Duna, in 1.0.4 regular chutes could open at 500 or 600m/s, in 1.0.5; speed has bee reduces ti 220m/s where you can open them at 250 on Kerbin. In any cas, I find it unlogical than same speed is lower on Duna thant Kerbin. FYI, safe speed on Eve is 200m/s

The issue with refuelling option is that you reverse the problem but you don't solve it. If you have a lander with 3200 range and ISRU capacity, you can land, refuel and orbit back. BUT you can't land again, you don't have enough fuel to do it again. You need another fuel source in orbit (that can be a fuel reserve or another sub-mission to refuel on Pol (with dedicated equipment because you tylo lander will be mostly dry). If your Tylo lander is big, your secondary refuelling mission can be a hassle, you'll have to deal with efficiency. Maybe the small ISRU and small drill can do the job if a engineer is onboard. but again, you won't have a scientist on board which is efficient to collect a lot of science : Hoping with a 3200 selft refueling lander is very nice to strip Tylo from science IF you have a sceintifs on board. And again, the MK landing can is way too heavy to be used on Tylo.

I did some calculations to refuelling from Pol when your station is around Tylo or Laythe A single trip from orbit to land on Pol would cost : Tylo : 1250 m/s (from 80km) Laythe : 1520 m/s (from 70 km) Miner has a 1300m/s range of operation (with nearly no safety margin). For Tylo, I recommend setting the station on a 100 to 200 km orbit to increase safety margin. The miner can the got to Pol, refuel come back and dock with sufficient safety margin. For Laythe, I recommend a higher orbit (at least 500km, probably 1000km). If you manage some aerobreaking, you can have a lower orbit, but the miner is not designed to do that, further more, firing LVN in atmo while your ship has already heating issues may not be the smartest idea... I'm waiting for 1.1 to revamp the SESS concept. I'll try to increase the range of the Miner. But the ship is already quite optimized. Here are some possible optimizations Removing 1 drill : I already tried that. Balancing the ship is very hard. KSP has no real tool for thrust balancing Getting the ISRU on board. The ship will grow much bigger (ore is denser than other propellant). Increase fuel reserves : that will reduce the fuel return on a full loop and reduce TWR. That maybe hard to operate at Moho or Vall Remove one LVN : again, that may lead that I can't take-off from Moho any more when loaded. Create a dedicated Miner for Pol refueling (all Jool's Moon except Vall) with only 2 LVN. The station wouldn't be universal any more as it's designed to be. Design a specific vehicle from Tylo and Laythe station to transfer FUEL only and use a secondary refining station around Pol. I'm eager to look at the 1.1 and tweak the SESS concept.

True. Several stuff in KSP are artificially hard, due to ill design (claw, fairings, cargo bays, joints, rovers), missing data (heat management, dV calculation, TWR) or more simply bad UI (nodes, context menu).

Oups, the Filtering I hoped in 1.1 is not about searching ships in tracking station but searching parts in VAB/SPH. My bad.

BTW, I found this mod that seems to do something related http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/81114-10x-2015-04-28-haystack-continued-v0410/#comment-1326197

OK, I never thought of "Escape velocity" from Olex tool. So that gives (rounded, starting from 30km "orbit") Moho : 4100 m/s (varies due to eccentricity) Eve : 3500 m/s Mun : 3300 m/s Minums : 3200 m/s Duna : 3500 m/s Dres : 4000 m/s (varies due to eccentricity ?) Jool : 4200 m/s Eeloo : 4500 m/s (varies due to eccentricity) If tangent is not coplanar, speed would be higher (1+sinus of plane angle ?). which can be quite high coming from Moho, Dres or Eeloo without plane change. Yes, my ship was mostly long : A big heatshield, a empty tank adapter to MK3 passenger and a double entpy tank, then again, a empty rockamax adapter tank and one battery, one probe core, and one reaction wheel. (I dumped the 3 LVN engines) I think that on my second try, the ship suffered from body lifting and quit prograde trajectory. The heatshield wasn't upfront and the ship exploded.

Context The Tracking station helps finding objects and swap between them. When playing with few ships in space, the tracking station is somewhat good. But when you play multiple mission at the same time, the object list is terrible. Issue The ship list only displays ships by date of creation. An old space station spliting a lander (undock) will create a new ship at the bottom of the list, not near the original ship Finding ships in that list is hard. There is no filter (seems to be in 1.1, though), no sorting, no grouping There is no "Mission" per say, only ships. Further more, there should be some simplified KAC features in that screen. Alarms on nodes are absolutely necessary when you play multiple ships. Solution Adding a new field to a ship description : "Mission" (and why no a real description) "Mission" can be edited as the name of the ship. It's a simple text Add a one level ship group by "Mission" name to the ship list in tracking station. This grouping could be optional (grouping by mission or no grouping) The Ship list would be sorted by mission and then by creation date/ID by default Allow sorting by name, ship type, launch ID (launch date), ship ID (creation date) BTW Is there a mod that do something related ?